Stupidity test . Here you go . Dont Google search .

[b]Here is a long answer I posted to another user[/b]:

It's arguably the hegemonic political ideology of the western world, certainly in the anglophone nations.

It's originally derived from classical liberalism of the 19th century: The belief in a small state, free-market economics, individual choice etc. Though, unlike classical liberals, the neo-liberals are happy to use the state to fortify their own ends. For example, the US War on Drugs and Thatcher using a militant police force to crush the miner's strike.

In the Anglophone world, it rose to prominence (and dominance) in the 80s; see Thatcher and Reagan. Whereas in Canada and Europe, its risen more incrementally but it's definitely a huge thing (Just ask the Greeks). The 90s in particular was an important decade of consolidation, with social democratic and liberal parties adopting it's main tenants to form a new (right-wing) political consensus. The End of History + TINA.

Its important to distinguish between neo-liberalism in theory and neoliberalism in practice. It claims to represent radical freedom from the state, whilst also using the state in an authoritarian way. It claims to want competition but its application has resulted in greater monopolies. In Marxian terms, it's a version of capitalism that results in ever further domination of capital over labour. It's come coupled with massive financialisation which has further abstracted the market from the real economy of production and trade in physical goods and services. And also further embedding neo-liberal markets into people's everyday lives.

That people don't talk about neo=liberalism anymore is kind of proof in its domination. It's tenants are seen as 'common-sense' in Gramscian terms. It has been through crisis since the 2007/08 financial crash and has faced challenges from both the left and the nationalist right. Though the left challenges have largely been defeated and the nationalist right challenges (see Trump) have been willingly co-opted within it. Resistance without resistance. Punching down while screaming at the sky while the heavens look on from above.

I've currently reading a book by a recently deceased British Marxist Intellectual called Mark Fisher. It's excellent and he goes into this stuff in detail. He quotes someone (Zizek I think) who says: "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." He then takes you on a ride through case studies of post-apocalyptic movies to demonstrate that point. There is so much good stuff in Fisher's book though it does I think veer into ideological pessimism. I don't quite agree that resistance within the spectacle is entirely performative and always reinforcing of capitalist realism. I think you would get a lot from it though.

The short answer is that it's a political ideology based on 'free-markets' and an interventionist state in some cases. It predicates privatizations, financialisation and outsourcing etc.

Its an economic ideology associated with the New Right in the 80s but its become ubiquitous and dominant, especially in the English-speaking countries.

Most of us live under neo-liberalism, whether we realise it or not.

No. it's not really about woke people in the US Democratic Party though some of them are neo-liberals too.

So the fact you're using the term neoliberalism and complaining about Reagan indicates you're on the left somewhere. So as one leftist to another - this is a bad way to approach politics.

There's a quote from a colleague I really like. "Do you want to be right, or do you want to win?"

I'm an organizer and run a union. Quizzing people on neoliberalism as some way to smugly posture about how much you know is self-sabotage and will isolate you.

I want someone who will do work. Call coworkers. Be brave and confront their boss in a group. I do not care what they know, I care about what they -do-.

Basically what I think of as [i][u]really[/u][/i] stupid, is using political labels as a substitute for actual thinking about issues. I thought that was the height (depth) of stupidity - until I saw your suggestion that you could 'google' your labels to find out what you might mean when you use them.

Basically this magical thinking idea that what is good for the capitalist "free market" is by definition a net positive for society...except for the neo liberals who believe society doesn't exist. And that shareholders are the only ones entitled to benefits from the economy, benefits to everyone else are apparently just a benevolent side effect. At at least according to Friedman.

Hold Biden’s beer on doing the most damage.

Until I came here, I thought neoliberalism was a far left mentality. I have since been taught that it is what we Americans call conservatism.